News that Michael Ballack will not face punishment for his off-the-ball challenge on Patrice Evra in the build-up to our second goal will come as a relief to all those, such as Andy Gray, who purport to understand football and in particular the use of the block, at what can only be described as ‘appropriate’ moments in the game. You see, Andy knows these things and with little time left in the match and Chelsea protecting their lead he was only too keen to praise Riccy for an equally cynical foul, referring to it as ‘clever in the circumstances’, if I’m not mistaken, and typical of the [solid/professional/good, choose you own implied word of praise] performance he had turned in for his MoM award.

Of course, Andy had quietened down a bit by then, whilst at the time when Ballack had shown the same degree of cynicism and subsequent events transpired to put United a goal down he felt his usual urge to make as much of the incident as Evra had done and moan on behalf of those in the United camp who couldn‘t [or shouldn’t] do so for themselves. Except that they did and those players, led by Rooney and Ferdinand duly gave Chris Foy their standard party piece of run around, finger pointing and blatant harassment. Ferguson had his go shortly afterwards, a session described by Patrick Barclay as a ’sympathetic’ exchange of words - exactly how dopey is that journalist? - and yet nothing will be heard from the authorities that even remotely puts these actions in the same ballpark as the Respect Campaign for referees.

No, poor old Chris Foy has got to lump it, I’m afraid, because everyone associated with Manchester United, from their manager downwards, demands kowtowing preferential treatment and when they don’t get it they don’t like it. In such an arena Jamie Redknapp can turn a block-with-arm-raised into an elbow-into-face incident in an instant without fear of contradiction. Suddenly what everybody had viewed as a yellow card offence at most had become a monster challenge that ’could have got a red card’ and, despite enough slow motion tools and gadgetry to settle any argument once and for all, none was used to verify his claim. Someone phoned in on Chelsea TV specifically to ask if the channel could do something about this bias, but he really shouldn’t be so naïve as to think the situation can ever be changed.

Doubtless Sky will always shrug their shoulders and tell us their neutrality is above reproach - except that this is never the case for any club’s fans when United are the opposition. Sunday’s confrontation in Skyspeak confirmed that the Charity Shield result mattered to both clubs at the start, mattered more when United were in front and mattered less when they were behind. The late equaliser was no more than United deserved, due to their first half showing and heaven knows what Patrice Evra has got to do to attract at least one unfavourable comment on his antics when fouled, feigning injury or challenging the referee face to face. Whether reverting to excuse mode has to be standard practice on Sky whenever United concede is debatable, but it seems to happen so often you do wonder why those in control cannot see the embarrassing state of affairs for themselves.

The key to the controversial incident Sky cling to so desperately is that referee Chris Foy confirmed he had seen the foul clearly and decided at the time it did not warrant action. As Foy did not intervene at the time, the FA could potentially have acted on the video evidence of Ballack's challenge – but the referee's statement means the matter is now closed. If Ballack is therefore getting away with what Redknapp believes to be a red card offence and the FA cannot used video evidence, why are Sky not showing the incident around the clock to ridicule the authorities and shame our German midfielder? I think we all know the answer to that one, don't we?

Edited August 10, 200915 yr by Dorset

did barclay really say that? what a pathetic excuse he is, hes so far up fergie arse he can clean his nose from the inside...

Well said :P . I think all will admit Ballack was lucky to escape a yellow but it was definetly not a red. I find it hard to believe no one in the media has questionned why Evra was holding his face when the obstruction was clearly upper chest level. Having established that Evra was feigning injury was he not the ultimate cause of ManU conceding? And how come he was able to get up so fast to add his protestations once the goal had been conceded?

I bet Ballack is now the hero of our groundstaff, just a pity he didnt catch him full on like Evras antics suggested he had.

Sums it all up nicely.

I find it hard to believe no one in the media has questionned why Evra was holding his face when the obstruction was clearly upper chest level. Having established that Evra was feigning injury was he not the ultimate cause of ManU conceding? And how come he was able to get up so fast to add his protestations once the goal had been conceded?

LOL I mean this was the biggest joke of the incident to me and Evra was more to blame for the goal against then Ballack was.

Its almost like the incident did'nt happen the way the tv camaras recorded it.

firstly it was a body check/obstruction not a clothes line/elbow.

Secondly Evra was not cought in the face and got up straight after the goal to remonstrate with the ref and Ballack which nobody has mentioned, he was clearly unhurt and feigning injury.

Thirdly Utd had possession at the time and Rooney decided to play on, 2 passes later their attack breaks down and the ball is hoofed clear by Riccy. Chelsea are still not in possession when Drogba challenges for the ball on the half way line, still no Utd protests. Its only when Drogba wins possession and turns that the whistles then start, we are still in our own half at this point so can hardly be in whats considered a goal scoring oppotunity and its the first rule of football that you dont stop but play to the whistle therefor Evra being out of position is nobody fault than his own

None of these valid points have been mentioned by anybody in the media other than on Chelsea tv, its almost like 2 seperate incidents, what really happend and then the Utd version. :lol:

It does make me laugh when Wegner is held up as a purist who team always play the best football . It is only when you watch them in the flesh you realize what a dirty team they are and how they bend the rules all the time . Especially in the Henry , Lijungbeg era they were especially adept at “accidentally†blocking opposing players runs off the ball which 9 times out of 10 were not picked up on the TV

The most stupid thing about the whole Evra incident, which once again has been ignored by all, is that if he had actually just got up and not faked an injury, he may well have been able to track back and stop Lampard having a free shot. As it was, he chose to play the primadonna again, leaving oodles of space for Frank to run into.

did barclay really say that? what a pathetic excuse he is, hes so far up fergie arse he can clean his nose from the inside...

Just for you, dkw, here’s the Barclay cockeyed view of what was going on. Enjoy…

“Wayne Rooney, after cancelling out Frank Lampard’s more-than dubious goal in stoppage time, had a quiet word with Foy about it [no mention of the barrage of abuse during the game] and so, in the interval before penalties, did Sir Alex Ferguson [if he thinks due deference provides gravitas, he’s got to be delusional]

Sympathetically the Manchester United manager made the point that, in the build up to a shot by Lampard that Ben Foster pushed against a post but could not prevent from spinning over the line, a clear and cynical foul by Michael Ballack that had laid out Patrice Evra had been missed. Ferguson accepted Foy’s explanation - that he could not give what he had not seen, presumably - but Mason [Lee Mason the fourth official] must have been squirming on his colleague’s account.â€

There is so much Barclay drivel being written here it’s difficult to know where to start - firstly, Chris Foy has come out and confirmed that he had seen the incident clearly and decided at the time it did not warrant action. So much for Barclay’s presumption, which was totally false, but necessary to add some much needed direction to his fairy story.

Secondly, the main gist of Barclay’s meanderings is that it is time to introduce video assistance, yet he completely fails to mention that any use of it in this instance would have provided justification for Foy’s actions, not a condemnation of them at all! He saw the incident, he waved play on, United has possession, they lost it and we scored. Exactly where Foy was a fault in all this is beyond me, unless it’s his failure to caution Ballack. Clearly, he didn’t think the block warranted a yellow card, let alone Redknapp’s suggested red, and using my telepathic powers in a similar way to Barclay, might I presume that that had something to do with Evra feigning injury in a blatant attempt to cheat.

The Chelsea groundkeeper hit Evra harder than Ballack and he managed to stay on he's feet. It looks like he's taken over Nancy's role of club cheat.

Yes I hate that bar steward Evra.

Just for you, dkw, here’s the Barclay cockeyed view of what was going on. Enjoy…

“Wayne Rooney, after cancelling out Frank Lampard’s more-than dubious goal in stoppage time, had a quiet word with Foy about it [no mention of the barrage of abuse during the game] and so, in the interval before penalties, did Sir Alex Ferguson [if he thinks due deference provides gravitas, he’s got to be delusional]

Sympathetically the Manchester United manager made the point that, in the build up to a shot by Lampard that Ben Foster pushed against a post but could not prevent from spinning over the line, a clear and cynical foul by Michael Ballack that had laid out Patrice Evra had been missed. Ferguson accepted Foy’s explanation - that he could not give what he had not seen, presumably - but Mason [Lee Mason the fourth official] must have been squirming on his colleague’s account.â€

There is so much Barclay drivel being written here it’s difficult to know where to start - firstly, Chris Foy has come out and confirmed that he had seen the incident clearly and decided at the time it did not warrant action. So much for Barclay’s presumption, which was totally false, but necessary to add some much needed direction to his fairy story.

Secondly, the main gist of Barclay’s meanderings is that it is time to introduce video assistance, yet he completely fails to mention that any use of it in this instance would have provided justification for Foy’s actions, not a condemnation of them at all! He saw the incident, he waved play on, United has possession, they lost it and we scored. Exactly where Foy was a fault in all this is beyond me, unless it’s his failure to caution Ballack. Clearly, he didn’t think the block warranted a yellow card, let alone Redknapp’s suggested red, and using my telepathic powers in a similar way to Barclay, might I presume that that had something to do with Evra feigning injury in a blatant attempt to cheat.

thats quite breathtaking in its ridiculousness. how can this man be regarded as anything other than a charalatan when he writes sh*te like that.

It just seems to me that if only Foy had put his hands up to signal an advantage this whole thing could've been avoided...

Great post Dorset